When does it become bad to explain things away with science?

[jgh7]

In another thread the argument came up that skeptics will do whatever they can to explain any supernatural event away with science. This raised numerous ethical questions in my mind.

The first question:
Is it morally bad to try and explain away supposed supernatural events with science?

My thoughts on the matter: I actually consider it a moral obligation to do everything possible to explain it away with science. In the past, it has proven to give us great knowledge. E.g.) Learning that lightning wasn't caused by Zeus, but by electrons and other cool scientific stuff.

The next question:
Ok, so perhaps some will concede it's initially not morally bad to explain things away with science, and that perhaps it's the responsible thing to do just to be sure and to possibly grant us better scientific knowledge of how the universe works. But does there come a point when it does become morally bad in the sense that we are being stubborn to the obvious supernatural events that have occurred?

Final Question:
Given all the knowledge we have acquired today throughout historical books, logical thinking, scientific experimentation, etc. Are there any events/phenomena that can be proven to have occurred or that are still occurring that are so obviously supernatural to the point that we should accept them as being from a higher power, and if we don't we are obviously stubborn selfish fools?

[Adamoriens]

I can only come at this question from an oblique angle. The astonishing success of the naturalistic perspective in science and medicine are compelling reasons to continue the program in the face of the world's complexity. The growing breadth and depth of modern research should indicate that, if there were any supernatural forces acting with any regularity and predictability on the world, we would've detected them by now. When you mention supernatural events, I take you to refer to the actions of supernatural personal agents, not impersonal regularities. It's obvious that if supernatural agents acted with precise regularity within the universe, we'd be unable to detect them. For example, God is often held to be actively conserving the universe's regularity and structure by a continuous act of will; but this is indistinguishable from the universe conserving itself. Apart from science's suggestion that a naturalistic perspective is most likely true, the facts of human psychology and myth-making ought to caution us against believing in non-regular supernatural action without very good evidence.

Of course, we have an obligation to believe true things and propagate true beliefs, so the naturalistic perspective cannot be favoured to the detriment of the truth. But it's hegemony appears to be secure.

[Crazee]

The first question:
Is it morally bad to try and explain away supposed supernatural events with science?

No, but I think it's best to realize that science does not have an objective definition. What science is has changed as our society has changed, and it will continue to change. Currently, formal science is the implementation of the scientific method to observe changes in an experiment with a control group, and an experimental group.

We see it (the scientific method) as the best way to differentiate right from wrong when trying to discover what our reality is. Is it the only credible way? In our courts of law we rely heavily on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to determine the truth, would humanity be better off if we used more circumstantial and anecdotal evidence in our scientific pursuits?

Now, what is supernatural? No matter what happens, isn't what happened going to necessarily be following the laws of the universe—no matter how incredible it may seem. I don't believe in supernatural phenomena, I believe that we may understand much less about the natural laws of the universe than we give ourselves credence for.

The next question:
Ok, so perhaps some will concede it's initially not morally bad to explain things away with science, and that perhaps it's the responsible thing to do just to be sure and to possibly grant us better scientific knowledge of how the universe works. But does there come a point when it does become morally bad in the sense that we are being stubborn to the obvious supernatural events that have occurred?

Again, I don't think there is such a thing as supernatural per se, but I understand your meaning here.

I think there is a point where we may be being a bit stubborn as to the incredible nature of some events for which we possess little to no understanding, the start of life on Earth for example. In my opinion, how that happened is so beyond our current understanding of how the universe works that we might as well consider it supernatural.

Final Question:
Given all the knowledge we have acquired today throughout historical books, logical thinking, scientific experimentation, etc. Are there any events/phenomena that can be proven to have occurred or that are still occurring that are so obviously supernatural to the point that we should accept them as being from a higher power, and if we don't we are obviously stubborn selfish fools?

There may be events that were brought about by a power that is way beyond our logical understanding, but it will still be a natural part of the universe. Events of the kind I described above are a good example.

[TheJackelantern]

When it doesn't' agree with religious ideologies or cults. Or when it disproves such fallacies as the fallacies and myths they are. So it brings out the fundamentalists and extremists who fear science.. And they do so because such religious ideologies ect feed directly off ignorance, and survive on it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

When does it become bad to explain things away with science?

When you're explainin' 'em away. Elsewise, you're just explainin' 'em, and that's just good science.

Of course many of those who have no explanation beyond, "Well don't that beat all" 'd be upset about the use of scientific principles and understanding. The god box is where all the unconfirmed 'knowledge' is stored, and when science shines a light in there, some folks get upset at just how empty it is.

[Flail]

In another thread the argument came up that skeptics will do whatever they can to explain any supernatural event away with science. This raised numerous ethical questions in my mind.

The first question:
Is it morally bad to try and explain away supposed supernatural events with science?

My thoughts on the matter: I actually consider it a moral obligation to do everything possible to explain it away with science. In the past, it has proven to give us great knowledge. E.g.) Learning that lightning wasn't caused by Zeus, but by electrons and other cool scientific stuff.

The next question:
Ok, so perhaps some will concede it's initially not morally bad to explain things away with science, and that perhaps it's the responsible thing to do just to be sure and to possibly grant us better scientific knowledge of how the universe works. But does there come a point when it does become morally bad in the sense that we are being stubborn to the obvious supernatural events that have occurred?

Final Question:
Given all the knowledge we have acquired today throughout historical books, logical thinking, scientific experimentation, etc. Are there any events/phenomena that can be proven to have occurred or that are still occurring that are so obviously supernatural to the point that we should accept them as being from a higher power, and if we don't we are obviously stubborn selfish fools?

The scientific method only gets a 'bad rap' from religionists against whose superstitions fail the 'method'. When science can't positively prove something with evidence, it's called a hypothetical or a theory....when religion can't prove something it's call Truth. Science demonstrates truth with experimentation, trial and error, testing and retesting; religion indoctrinates 'truth' with hearsay. dogma and superstition.

The historical method works well to 'approximate' history, but not prove it....and history does not work well with supernatural claims due to the fact that nothing supernatural has ever verifiably occurred at any time or place in the long history of mankind.

[Rowena]

The first question:
Is it morally bad to try and explain away supposed supernatural events with science?

Not at all: truth is truth, finding out that truth, naturally good.

The next question:
Ok, so perhaps some will concede it's initially not morally bad to explain things away with science, and that perhaps it's the responsible thing to do just to be sure and to possibly grant us better scientific knowledge of how the universe works. But does there come a point when it does become morally bad in the sense that we are being stubborn to the obvious supernatural events that have occurred?

If science tries to explain it, and it ends up contradictory to the actual science, and adheres to no possible (rather than no known) laws of science, then it would be supernatural: but would that be possible?
Anything can seem supernatural if you don't know the explanation behind it; you're currently reading projected particles which are both a light and a wave, caused by someone you will most likely never meet, miles away, and stored essentially nowhere physical. You're also on top of a whopping great rock covered in a thin film of gas, hurtling around a huge ball of gas which you're seeing as it was seconds ago, and sometimes you look up into the sky and see things stars which no longer exist.
If you didn't know about the speed of light, and photons, and the internet, how would that seem?

Final Question:
Given all the knowledge we have acquired today throughout historical books, logical thinking, scientific experimentation, etc. Are there any events/phenomena that can be proven to have occurred or that are still occurring that are so obviously supernatural to the point that we should accept them as being from a higher power, and if we don't we are obviously stubborn selfish fools?

No.
Simple enough. There are some fantastic events, no question: the Miracle of the Dancing Sun comes to mind, but it takes just a little examination to find problems. For example, in that case, of the people there, some saw fantastic events: other people who believed that it would happen saw nothing at all, and almost all the others saw different things.

[Moses Yoder]

I believe it is bad to think a scientist is right and a Christian is wrong based simply on the fact that the scientist uses "science." The ignorant, unlearned person believes the scientist simply because he puts a rock in a radiometric device and pulls the rock out and says "THIS ROCK IS 75 MILLION YEARS OLD" and the ignoramus believes it simply because that is what the machine has been programmed to do by a "scientist."

[Baz]

What was perceives as supernatural has been described in this thread as natural stuff we don’t understand yet.
I believe we probably only know a fraction of how and what nature is.
As I understand it supernatural is what we believe to be above or outside nature as we know it.
So doesn’t that leave a lot of scope for supernatural?

[Goat]

I believe it is bad to think a scientist is right and a Christian is wrong based simply on the fact that the scientist uses "science." The ignorant, unlearned person believes the scientist simply because he puts a rock in a radiometric device and pulls the rock out and says "THIS ROCK IS 75 MILLION YEARS OLD" and the ignoramus believes it simply because that is what the machine has been programmed to do by a "scientist."

That, of course, is not how science works. A learned person would know what the device does, and how it does it.

The ignorant and unlearned person would say 'It can't be, because this book tells me it can't happen]